Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Stress urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscle exercises: effectiveness two different training intensive versus home instruccitions



Key Questions Addressed
1 KQ 1: What are the benefits and harms of nonpharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 2: What are the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 3: What are the comparative benefits and harms of nonpharmacological versus pharmacological treatments of UI in women? KQ 4: What are the benefits and harms of combined nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment of UI in women?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Stress urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscle exercises: effectiveness two different training intensive versus home instruccitions
Author Tejero M, Marco E, Boza R, Seva F, Piqueras M, Guillen A, Castillo MT, Muniesa JM
Country Hospital de la Esperanza, Barcelona, Spain
Year 2008
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 group A intensive treatment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 group b truncated treatment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type NRCS
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Spain
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria referred to PFPT, 18 or older, diagnosis of SUI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria neurogenic cause, cognitive impairment, nocturnal enuresis, pregnant or pregnant within the past 6 months, vaginal prolapse beyond the introits.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
urinary incontinence with cough
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Directionality Prospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 55
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
medan
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
11
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 62
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
62
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years Jan 2004 - Dec 2006
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study? no
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question group A group b Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 31 31 62
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
27 29 56
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Bladder control, subjective      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure group A group b


4 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE
Outcome: Bladder control, subjective      Population: improved
Time Point Measure group A group b


4 months

N Analyzed 16 18
Mean 10 12
SD
SE
Outcome: Bladder control, subjective      Population: unchanged
Time Point Measure group A group b


4 months

N Analyzed 12 18
Mean 4 6
SD
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data (attrition bias) High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS.....Patients in different intervention groups selected in an equivalent manner Unsure
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS....Baseline differences between groups accounted for (Adjusted analysis)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Other issues No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.